The Most Revolutionary Act

Uncensored updates on world events, economics, the environment and medicine

The Most Revolutionary Act

Author Archives: stuartbramhall

Unknown's avatar

About stuartbramhall

Retired child and adolescent psychiatrist and American expatriate in New Zealand. In 2002, I made the difficult decision to close my 25-year Seattle practice after 15 years of covert FBI harassment. I describe the unrelenting phone harassment, illegal break-ins and six attempts on my life in my 2010 book The Most Revolutionary Act: Memoir of an American Refugee.

AOC, Sanders tell supporters to mask up for West Coast townhalls

Posted on by
2

Sanders and AOC

By Deirdre Heavey Fox News

The RSVP for events in Denver and Las Vegas includes guidance that ‘masks are advised for all attendees of this event’

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders said the U.S. has become an “oligarchic society” while responding to President Donald Trump’s address to a joint Congress on Tuesday evening. (Credit: Senator Bernie Sanders)

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., are taking the “Fighting Oligarchy” rallies out West next week – and advising supporters to mask up to participate.

Five years after the COVID-19 pandemic, Fox News Digital can confirm that the RSVP for the events in Denver and Las Vegas includes guidance that “masks are advised for all attendees of this event.”

A post shared by conservative podcaster Stephen L. Miller on Friday about the Denver event had many wondering why masks would be advised for an outdoor event in 2025.

Sanders did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s inquiry about the mask guidance.

“Sent from a friend. Bernie’s speaking tour is advising everyone in attendance to wear masks. This is an outdoor event,” the X post said, accompanied by a screenshot of the RSVP.

“Still trying the Covid panic politics,” the top comment said.

“Was this from the year 2020?” a content creator asked.

But another reply countered: “They don’t want the paid attendees found out.”

The reactions to the post are split, with many people online dumbfounded by the need for masks exactly five years after the COVID-19 pandemic forced shutdowns and social distancing.

Others speculated that the masks are a way to protect attendees’ identities. Masks are a common practice to protect protesters’ identities at large demonstrations, like the pro-Palestine protests at Columbia University this past year.

However, Sanders’ “Fighting Oligarchy” events are not protests. Events in the Blue Wall states of Michigan and Wisconsin last weekend operated like a traditional campaign rally, with thousands of supporters lining up to earn a spot inside to hear the headline speaker.

Sanders announced the West Coast leg of his “Fighting Oligarchy” tour with Ocasio-Cortez in a social media video on Friday. The progressives will make stops in Nevada, Arizona and Colorado “to hold town meetings with working people who are profoundly disgusted with what is going on in Washington, D.C.”

“Nevada, Colorado, Arizona: You deserve public servants who show up for you. The time is now to protect the public good, advance healthcare and living wages for all, and fight against corruption. See you next week,” Ocasio-Cortez said on Friday.

The National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), the political campaign committee tasked with electing more Republicans to the U.S. House of Representatives, advised against town halls following a series of protest disruptions fueled by Democrats’ discontent with President Donald Trump’s second term.

Gov. Tim Walz, D-Minn., began his own slew of town hall events in Republican-held congressional districts on Friday, saying if a Republican representative refused to meet with their constituents, then he would “lend a megaphone” to them.

The Democratic National Committee (DNC) announced on Friday a revised organized effort alongside the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), Association of State Democratic Committees (ASDC) and Democrat state parties to host town halls in Republican-held districts.

“Republicans in Congress know they sold out their voters by backing the Trump-Musk agenda – and now they’re terrified to be in the same room as the people who sent them to Washington,” DNC Chair Ken Martin said in a statement on Friday.

“Instead of facing their constituents, they’re running scared and hiding from the people they were elected to represent. If they won’t talk to their own voters, then Democrats will. That’s why we’ll be hosting People’s Town Halls in all 50 states across the country, starting now with vulnerable GOP-held target districts. Working families deserve to have their voices heard, even if Republicans want to ignore them,” Martin added.

The NRCC said the protests that shut down Republicans’ town hall meetings were “manufactured productions.” Fox News Digital reported last month about the coordinated effort by progressive groups protesting the Department of Government Efficiency.

MoveOn.org, which has accepted millions of dollars from billionaire George Soros and his Open Society Policy Center, announced in a press release last month that it was mobilizing resources as part of a “Congress Works for Us, Not Musk” initiative “aimed at pressuring lawmakers to fight back against the Trump-Musk agenda” at Republican town halls and offices.

In addition to the mask guidance, the flier for next Friday’s event with Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez includes typical safety precautions for large public events, including a request for anyone not feeling well to stay home.”Please note: no bags, signs, or firearms are allowed. Masks are advised for all attendees of this event. Anyone experiencing a fever or other symptoms of COVID-19 is asked to stay home and not attend,” it says on the RSVP.

The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) ended their travel mask mandate on April 18, 2022.

According to the CDC’s website, masks are still “recommended in indoor public transportation settings” and “people may choose to mask at any time.”

The website advises people who are at medium to high risk of getting very sick to wear a mask or “consider avoiding non-essential indoor activities in public where you could be exposed.”

While the CDC has maintained that masking can reduce the spread of respiratory illnesses, including COVID-19, other studies since the pandemic have brought into question the efficacy of wearing a mask.

[…]

Via https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dems-tell-supporters-mask-up-ahead-fighting-oligarchy-tour

 

Do Non-Citizens Have Constitutional Rights? The Founding Fathers Thought So

Posted on by
8

Ryan McMaken

Columbia University student and legal US resident, Mahmoud Khalil, was arrested last week by federal agents. Although Khalil is a legal resident with a green card, and has not even been accused of any immigration-related infraction, he is being held at an immigration detention center.

The Trump administration has hinted that Khalil is guilty of some sort of non-specific “terrorist” activity, but Khalil has yet to be charged with any crime at all. Indeed, when House Speaker Mike Johnson was asked at a recent press conference what crime Khalil had committed, he couldn’t name one.

Rather, as the AP reported yesterday, “The Department of Homeland Security said Khalil was taken into custody as a result of Trump’s executive orders prohibiting antisemitism.” No specific act of violence, theft, vandalism, or fraud is named.

So, here’s the situation: a legal resident of the United States, who has not been convicted of any crime, or even facing any charges, is now in a holding cell until government agents can come up with a “crime” that they think they can get past a federal judge.

Do Non-Citizens Have Constitutional Rights?

Whatever one may conclude in the recent debate over illegal aliens—and whether or not those people have a right of due process—no one disputes that Khalil is a legal resident. Moreover, he’s a green card holder and permanent resident, and not just a visa holder.

So, does Khalil have a legal right to due process in the United States? Can the administration simply pack him off to jail because the president wishes it?

The Trump administration and its supporters have long labored under the false notion that non-citizens do not have full legal rights under the US constitution. In this, they reflect the views of Dick Cheney and other politicians of the era of the “Global War on Terror” when the executive state was forever searching for new ways to justify spying on American citizens and expanding the police state.

This idea, however, has no grounding in text of the Bill of Rights or in the thinking of American “founders” influenced by Thomas Jefferson and other opponents of a strong central American state. David Cole writes in the Thomas Jefferson Law Review:

The Constitution does distinguish in some respects between the rights of citizens and noncitizens: the right not to be discriminatorily denied the vote and the right to run for federal elective office are expressly restricted to citizens. All other rights, however, are written without such a limitation. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal protection guarantees extend to all “persons.” The rights attaching to criminal trials, including the right to a public trial, a trial by jury, the assistance of a lawyer, and the right to confront adverse witnesses, all apply to “the accused.” And both the First Amendment’s protections of political and religious freedoms and the Fourth Amendment’s protection of privacy and liberty apply to “the people.” The fact that the Framers chose to limit to citizens only the rights to vote and to run for federal office is one indication that they did not intend other constitutional rights to be so limited. The Court has repeatedly stated that “the Due Process Clause applies to all ‘persons’ within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent. …

When noncitizens, no matter what their status, are tried for crimes, they are entitled to all of the rights that attach to the criminal process, without any distinction based on their nationality. There are strong normative reasons for the uniform extension of these fundamental rights. As James Madison himself argued, those subject to the obligations of our legal system ought to be entitled to its protections.

This idea is clearly represented in the text of the Bill of Rights itself. Historian Wang Xi notes:

It is also important to note that the word “citizen” or “citizens” was not used at all in the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments added to the Constitution in 1791. The Bill of Rights used “people” five times and “person”/“persons” four times. The implication is clear: the fundamental rights to be protected here were not the rights to be granted to citizens but rights that had belonged to people before citizenship was created. These rights were beyond the reach of the (federal) government.

This last sentence is key and illustrates an important philosophical and ideological reason why the Bill of Rights rightly applies to all persons, and not only to citizens. Rights can only truly be “beyond the reach” of the federal government if they are assumed to not be voidable by the US government. If rights can be voided by revoking or denying citizenship, then federal government enjoys a big loophole when it comes to the Bill of Rights.

The early framers recognized this, and since the Bill of Rights was designed specifically by the anti-federalists to limit federal power, this disconnect between rights and citizenship helped ensure that the federal government could not do an end run around rights by simply declaring that a person was not a citizen. (Notably, in the early decades of the constitution, it was the states, not the federal government, that determined citizenship, further limiting federal power.)

This all makes perfect sense when we recognize that citizenship and natural rights are two completely different things. Citizenship is an administrative status that has no meaning outside of administrative government. “Rights,” understood as property rights or natural rights, pre-date the state and exist separate from it. True property rights are natural, and if rights are natural in their origin—i.e., people are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”, to use Jefferson’s phrase—then rights cannot be denied based on one’s citizenship status.

The Current Hysteria Mirrors that behind the Alien and Sedition Acts

In the centuries since the Bill of Rights was written, however, the federal government has become far more powerful than it was in the 1790s. The federal government—usually motivated by fears over “insurrectionists” and foreign threats—has invented for itself many ways that it can get around the Bill of Rights.

Indeed, those who favored an expanded federal state almost immediately set to work giving the federal government new powers to be used against resident aliens. This can be seen in the Federalist Party’s support of the Alien and Sedition Acts during the John Adams administration. The Federalists routinely played up domestic fears about French revolutionary involvement in the United States, and used this as justification for new laws allowing the President vast new powers to deport alleged enemies of the state and to silence critics. This was justified on the idea that foreign agents were undermining the United States government somehow, and therefore resident aliens ought to be stripped of their natural rights. As a result, many enemies of the Adams regime were arrested and deported, Some were even imprisoned in the United States.

Fortunately, the Jeffersonians came to power in 1801 and allowed most of the provisions of the acts to expire. For decades afterward, the federal government remained extremely limited in its powers to deny property rights based on citizenship or claims of “insurrection.” It was not until the aftermath of the US Civil War, with newly invented political crimes like “sedition,” that the Federal government was again able to significantly expand its prosecutions of alleged foreign agents. These federal powers were again greatly expanded with the widespread xenophobia that prevailed during the two World Wars.

Property Rights versus the Fake “Crime” of Federally Defined Antisemitism

The current administration’s efforts to void property rights for non-citizens is especially troubling given the political nature of the alleged crimes of Khalil. On Monday, federal official claimed Khalil was arrested to enforce the White House’s new order on “antisemitism.” On Tuesday, however, officials were claiming that Khalil was arrested for some sort of terrorism because Khalil had facilitated the distribution of “pro-Hamas propaganda.”

Either way, it seems the federal government plans to charge Khalil with some vague antisemitism charge or with the “crime” of saying pro-Hamas things. It’s hard to imagine two “crimes” that are less permissible under an honest reading of the First Amendment.

First of all, the new “crime” of antisemitism, invented by the president’s recent executive order, is nothing more than the sort of “hate crime” law that Conservatives used to revile. The president’s order says that discriminating against Jews or engaging in crimes that target Jews are a special kind of crime. Conservatives used to mock this sort of thing and rightly so. First of all, if Jewish students on campuses have been physically assaulted or their property vandalized, then the people who commit those crimes should be prosecuted for assault and vandalism. Vandalism and assault are already illegal. Moreover, “discrimination” isn’t a real crime if it doesn’t involve some sort of physical violence, fraud, or theft. Not liking a person because he or she is a member of a certain group is illogical and distasteful, but it has never been an actual violation of property rights. Non-violent “discrimination” is simply another term for “free association.”

Specific threats against the safety of any person—whether Jewish or not—are already crimes. There is no need of a special antisemitism law. Of course, the administration knows that acts of violence and vandalism are already illegal. The real purpose of the executive order is to crack down on protests against the State of Israel and virtually everyone knows this. It is clear that Khalil’s real “crime” is criticizing the State of Israel, and Trump has said as much, singling out anti-Israel protests as the only sort of protest for targeting in his executive order. If Khalil had protested anything other than the State of Israel, he’d be a free man right now.

Nor is it a real crime—i.e., a violation of property rights—to say things in support of some alleged terrorist organization. The very idea of such a thing would have struck most conscientious Americans as despotic in the extreme throughout most of the nineteenth century.

For many supporters of the administration, the fact that federal agents have arrested Khalil is enough to establish his guilt and revoke his rights. No due process is necessary. And, apparently, its not even necessary that Khalil commit any actual crimes against person or property. It’s enough that he’s a person the administration doesn’t like. So deportation awaits.

[…]

Via https://mises.org/mises-wire/do-non-citizens-have-constitutional-rights-founding-fathers-thought-so

President Trump’s Tariffs: A New Golden Age For American Aluminum Workers

Posted on by
4

Zero Hedge

President Donald Trump specialized in shattering conventional wisdom and challenging the status quo on his road to the White House in 2016. To this day, our president believes Americans are getting ripped off by unfair trade practices where country after country has gotten comfortable taking advantage of the United States due to our unparalleled generosity and wealth. So, he’s focused like a laser beam on fair trade and leveling the playing field so our manufacturing workers can compete with foreign competitors and prosper. President Trump has declared that by implementing targeted tariffs on foreign countries that hurt American workers, “our country will be extremely liquid and rich again.”

Having served as President Trump’s deputy campaign manager in 2016 and as an advisor to his campaigns in 2020 and 2024, I was delighted to see him reelected in 2024 with a huge mandate to fight for our manufacturing sector and usher in a “Golden Age” in America. Make no mistake, our 45th and 47th president is determined to finish the revolution on American trade policy that he began by fixing the mistakes of the Biden-Harris years and strengthening Section 232 tariffs on aluminum and steel.

As part of the shock-and-awe action of his first one hundred days in office, President Trump signed new proclamations to bolster the fair-trade policy introduced during his historic first term in office. By elevating tariffs to 25% on aluminum and restoring the 25% levy on steel, the Trump administration is making clear that they have the backs of thousands of American aluminum and steel workers and are resolute in their mission to create a multitude of new manufacturing jobs.

While the globalists in the economic establishment and mainstream media react to targeted tariffs with their customary Trump-deranged hysteria, American manufacturers reacted with both joy and relief because President Trump is making good on another campaign promise. It must be repeated again and again – because the fake news media refuses to tell the truth – that this president supports robust trade, but it must be trade that is fair and reciprocal. This is the linchpin of the policy.

Under the “America Last” mindset of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, foreign countries were free to exploit loopholes in Section 232 to flood the domestic aluminum and steel industry with cheap products. Canada, Mexico, Australia, and Argentina locked arms with D.C. swamp creatures to secure exclusions and exemptions, to the detriment of American workers. Australia’s aluminum exports into the U.S. have increased sharply and at the same time China and Russia have used loopholes to move aluminum through Mexico and Canada to flood our market. As a result of foreign countries cheating, Alcoa announced the permanent closing of its smelter in Washington State. Other closures have included a Century Aluminum plant in Kentucky, which idled production in 2022, and Magnitude 7 Metals in Missouri, which was forced to close in 2024. 

Many globalists claim that the aluminum tariffs will raise costs for consumers. This is the same stale argument we heard in the first Trump administration; it wasn’t true then and it isn’t true now. The tariffs didn’t impact the amount of steel or aluminum consumed, didn’t weaken the economy, and didn’t cause massive job losses. Conversely, capacity utilization for aluminum increased during President Trump’s first term and now major investments in the steel industry have been announced. While some globalist companies attack President Trump’s targeted tariffs, some are telling their investors that “if all countries are getting a tariff, the impact for us is zero.” And while some globalist leaders who own aluminum smelters in Canada attack President Trump’s 25% tariff, the reality is that he was elected to bring back good-paying manufacturing jobs to American plants, and this is a commitment he plans to keep. As President Trump has said time and time again, America is done subsidizing Canada and the rest of the world.

Aluminum and steel manufacturing are critical to America’s defense industrial base. Continued dependence on foreign suppliers leaves us vulnerable and jeopardizes our national security interests. President Trump is putting America first, which means a do-it-all, do-it-now policy supporting domestic manufacturing, no more loopholes, no more exemptions, and no more of the failed Biden agenda. America’s “Golden Age” will only be achieved if we have a strong and stable industrial base. President Trump’s aluminum and steel tariffs will help save America and make our country great again.

[…]

Via https://www.zerohedge.com/political/president-trumps-tariffs-new-golden-age-american-aluminum-workers

BIRD FLU SCAM: Neither CANADA nor MEXICO Have Killed a Single Chicken Due to Bird Flu Because Mysteriously Bird Flu DOES NOT CROSS BORDERS

Posted on by
2

S D Wells

Beware of the Chicken Flu, also known as “Bird Flu,” that only happens in America because the chickens don’t have passports to travel to Canada or Mexico. No worries about the USDA or FDA visiting your chicken farm in those countries to kill off all your chickens that might have gain-of-function Fauci Chicken Flu, because it’s just an American thing right now. The Biden Regime somehow still has influence over the poultry industrial complex, and his cronies at the CDC are still pushing the sheeple to get jacked up with some neuro-destroying dirty jabs for “Bird Flu.”

It was all about decimating the food supply and driving egg prices through the roof, while fearmongering about another pandemic while injecting the masses with toxic chemicals that cause infertility, blood clots, and turbo cancer. Got questions about Bird Flu? Fake news has answers for you.

Oh yes. NBC fearmongering news would have us all believe that the only way to stop bird flu is to kill off all the diseased birds. Got to “wrangle in” that plandemic, just like Covid. Put all the birds on lockdown and mask them up ‘til we can flatten out the curve, right Fauci?

Yes, according to “federal policy,” when a bird flu “outbreak” is identified, ALL the birds must be culled. Same goes for humans, but with humans, when an “outbreak” of a lab-made virus is identified, all humans must be “culled” using mRNA jabs, kidney-killing Remdesivir, and death-in-4-days ventilators.

Bird Flu doesn’t seem to be able to cross the border in Mexico or Canada because the chickens can’t fly over Trump’s border wall

There has to be a logical reason the U.S. Bird Flu plandemic can’t seem to cross the border, and no other bordering countries have killed a single bird to have to save all the humans from sure death. Maybe Trump’s wall is too tall?

What other explanation could there be? Conspiracy theories are whirling around like a busted screen door in a hurricane. According to NBC news, “It seems like another battle keeps popping up day after day,” said Andrew Bowman, some so-called influenza “expert” (pharma shill) at Ohio State University’s College of Veterinary Medicine. “I really hate saying ‘unprecedented,’ but it sure feels different than anything before.”

Sure Drew, it’s unprecedented, like nothing anyone has ever seen before. The Biden Regime killed off billions of chickens without any proof there was a breakout of Bird Flu. It was all hearsay. Which came first, the sick chicken or the gain-of-function leak from a Wuhan lab?

Is it safe to buy chickens and eggs? Are the chickens hooking up with the cows like bestiality trannies and spreading the disease to the cows? Maybe the cows are sick and Americans should stop drinking milk. If you see something, say something. Meanwhile, the FDA continues to recommend cooking your $10 egg until both the yolk and white harden to a crisp, just to be sure. Ready for that gain-of-function, avian influenza egg and cheese omelet? No?

Wait, there’s more fearmongering from fake news. Professors of medicine at pharma-funded universities across the U.S. claim, “Birds that have avian influenza die and they’re sick and they don’t lay eggs,” and “That’s where the virus is in the dairy cows,” said Dr. Peter Chin-Hong, a professor of medicine at the University of California San Francisco, who is paid big bucks to study infectious diseases.

[…]

Via https://www.naturalnews.com/2025-03-13-neither-canada-nor-mexico-have-killed-chicken.html

Judge orders Trump to reinstate probationary employees

Posted on by
4

by Brian Shilhavy
Editor, Health Impact News

In a ruling today that was largely expected by legal analysts, but greatly upset MAGA Trump supporters, a federal judge has ruled that the firing of federal employees by the Trump Administration was illegal, allowing up to 24,000 federal employees to return to work.

Because the judge was a Bill Clinton appointee, the MAGA crowd called “foul!” and blamed the ruling on partisan politics, with many claiming that President Trump has the right to fire whomever he wants to.

But in rushing to judgment about this ruling, it is doubtful that the Trump supporters even read the judge’s ruling and the facts of the case, as Trump’s Department of Justice (DOJ) did not even argue this point (that Trump has a right to fire whomever he wants to), but in fact took the opposite position that Trump did not fire anyone, but instead gave “guidance” to the various agencies through the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), and that then the agencies themselves determined who should be fired.

The judge didn’t buy that, mainly because when he ordered the acting OMB director Charles Ezell to testify in court about this “guidance”, Trump’s legal team did not allow him to testify, and instead withdrew his “declaration” so that he did not have to testify in court and obey the judge’s summons.

The judge essentially accused the Trump Administration of lying.

A federal judge has ordered half a dozen federal agencies to “immediately” reinstate probationary employees fired last month as part of the Trump administration’s effort to rapidly shrink the federal workforce, calling the effort a “sham.”

The preliminary injunction issued from the bench Thursday by US District Judge William Alsup requires the departments of Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, Defense, Energy, Interior and Treasury to rehire the employees. The judge said that he might extend the order to cover other federal agencies at a later time.

Alsup  said he was making the ruling because he believes the Office of Personnel Management unlawfully directed the agencies earlier this year to lay off the probationary employees, who generally have been on the job for less than a year.

“The court finds that Office of Personnel Management did direct all agencies to terminate probationary employees with the exception of mission critical employees,”

he said, rejecting arguments from the Justice Department that OPM merely issued “guidance” to the agencies that then led to the firings.

The judge said the order is effective immediately: “This is the order and it counts.”

The ruling came in a case brought by labor unions and others challenging OPM’s role in the firings, which affected thousands of employees and sent shockwaves through various federal agencies, some of which later rehired some of the workers.

Alsup was highly critical of the administration’s justification for firing the employees. OPM had provided agencies with a template termination letter that cited the employee’s “performance” as the reason they were being let go. But the judge said that rationale was the government’s attempt to end-run federal law setting up specific rules for reducing the federal workforce.

“The reason that OPM wanted to put this based on performance was at least in part in my judgment a gimmick to avoid the Reductions in Force Act,” the judge said.

“Because the law always allows you to fire somebody for performance.”

“It is a sad day when our government would fire some good employee and say it was based on performance when they know good and well that’s a lie,” he added.

“That should not have been done in our country. It was a sham in order to try to avoid statutory requirements.”

The decision came after Alsup unloaded on the Justice Department for not making the acting head of the Office of Personnel Management available to testify about the Trump administration’s decision to fire scores of probationary employees.

He had ordered acting OMB director Charles Ezell to testify during Thursday’s hearing, where he would likely face tough questions from attorneys representing the labor unions that are challenging his agency’s role in the firings.

But the Justice Department refused to make him available and instead withdrew a declaration Ezell submitted last month that had served as the government’s only evidence in the case.

“You’re afraid to do so because you know cross-examination will reveal the truth,” Alsup told DOJ attorney Kelsey Helland.

“I tend to doubt that you’re telling me the truth.” (Source.)

[…]

In a recent interview with David Knight, Catherine Austin Fitts explains that it is easy to cut out this wasteful government spending LEGALLY, and that the current administration run by Musk Trump, has no intention of shrinking the size of government.

They just want to eliminate the public sector and move them into the private sector where they have more control over the population.

Listen to this 7-minute section from the longer interview you can find here.

It is easy to see that the agencies the Trump administration wants to eliminate in many cases are the ones investigating Musk and standing in the way of Big Tech, which is also providing all the technology for the surveillance state which we now see in Gaza and the West Bank, as these Big Tech companies, like SpaceX and Palantir, have now become rich on Government military contracts.

If Trump was truly serious about eliminating the U.S. Government debt, he could just let the federal government shut down completely, which would bring pain and suffering across the board to ALL Americans, regardless of their political biases.

But that is NOT what he wants, as is evidence from his most recent attacks against Kentucky Congressman Thomas Massie, who is the lone Republican in the House of Representatives who did not support the “Continuing Resolution” (CR) bill to keep funding the federal government that passed in the House yesterday.

Trump was so angry with him, that he threatened Representative Massie, stating that he would make sure he is defeated in the next primary election in his district in Kentucky.

However, Massie is far more popular than Donald Trump is in his home district, and he has been threatened before by Trump, as well as by the Israeli lobby group AIPAC, but to no avail.

In the 2024 elections, Massie got over 70% of the vote in the Republican primaries, and that was with AIPAC spending $millions to try to defeat him.

In the general election against his Democrat opponent, he won with over 99% of the vote: 278,386 to 1,130.

Massie is not going anywhere, and Trump’s attacks against him have just solidified Massie’s support and made him even more popular.

Donald Trump’s Attack on Thomas Massie Sparks Republican Pushback

President Donald Trump has received pushback from Republicans after calling for Kentucky Representative Thomas Massie to be voted out of office.

In a Monday post on Truth Social, the president said he would “lead the charge” in ousting Massie after the GOP lawmaker announced he would not support the Trump-backed government funding bill.

Massie confirmed Monday that he would not support for the short-term spending bill because it maintains federal funding at current levels without considering budget cuts overseen by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

Trump later called for Massie to be ousted from office, saying he would support any challenger in a GOP primary.

Trump also compared Massie to former Wyoming Representative Liz Cheney, whose political career in the Republican Party collapsed after she opposed and criticized Trump for his actions surrounding the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.

A number of Republican and Libertarian figures have since voiced support for Massie on social media, suggesting Trump is making a mistake by attacking the Kentucky lawmaker. (Source.)

[…]

Via https://vaccineimpact.com/2025/judge-rules-against-trumps-illegal-firing-of-federal-employees-setback-for-musks-goals-as-opposition-grows/

Why I Moved to Russia

Posted on by
5

Why I moved to Russia | RT Documentary

Why I Moved to Russia

RT (2024)

Film Review

https://www.rt.com/shows/documentary/599229-americans-moved-russia-life-stories/

Tofurious Maximus Crane is an independent American journalist who emigrated to Russia in 2023 because he wanted to ascertain the truth about the Russian Special Military Operation in Ukraine. He decided to stay after Putin liberalized immigration rules in August 2024. He interviews three other US expats about their experiences moving to Russia.

Tofurious begins by meeting with Jozef and Ann, American expats who recently moved to Russia with their six children. The couple was very concerned about gender ideology American schools were promoting without parents’ knowledge or consent. They were aware of instances where schools persuaded children as young as 12 and 13 they were the wrong gender and got them prescriptions for puberty blockers and gender altering hormones without ever notifying their parents. Joe, who is an IT manager, and Ann described feeling more relaxed in Russia, without the pervasive poverty and street violence that surrounded them in the US. Health care costs are much more reasonable in Russia and, despite sanctions, common US brands are widely available.

Jay Close was born in New York, grew up in California, and has lived in France, Australia, and Papua New Guinea. He worked as a chef for the Rolling Stones and later managed several restaurants in Moscow. At present Jay raises goats and makes heirloom cheese in the countryside near Moscow, his home for over 30 years.

Things have changed a lot since he first arrived in 1993, when the US embassy kept hassling Americans in Russia to leave. The recent US sanctions have greatly increased his business.

Tofurious also interviews Chad Hower, an American software designer and blogger granted political asylum in Russia after he refused to cooperate with the FBI in blackmailing his Russian wife’s family (who had access to classified Russian military information). He really likes Russia because there are no muggings there and no need to carry a gun.

EU Backs Islamic Terrorists in Syria While Russia, US Condemn Their Massacres

Posted on by
10
By Drago Bosnic

Ever since the NATO-backed terrorist takeover of Syria, the situation in the country has been a total disaster. The Islamic radicals have been conducting extremist policies that strip minorities of virtually any rights. Many analysts (myself included) have predicted that the real Syrian Civil War is only starting and that the previous one was a crawling NATO aggression against sovereign Syria. With the fall of Assad, the country was turned into a (neo)colony of NATO and its allies in the region. Any semblance of a civilized society came crashing down as various foreign-backed terrorist groups took power.

It wouldn’t be long before they started a genocidal campaign against minorities, particularly the native Christians and Alawites. These groups were treated well under Assad (himself being an Alawite) and were loyal to his government. This makes them top priority targets under the Islamic terrorist regime.

In the last several days, the war crimes committed by these radicals came under the spotlight as they published videos of gruesome atrocities against civilians (including women, children and the elderly). The footage of these monstrous massacres is not for the faint of heart (here, here, here, here and here). Minorities in western Syria have taken up arms to defend their homes and families, as the terrorist al-Sharaa regime keeps sending its forces to eradicate Christians and Alawites.

Now, you’d expect there at least wouldn’t be open support for the Islamic radicals, but that’s precisely what’s happening now. Namely, despite being faced with numerous issues at home the pathetically impotent European Union somehow found the time to “strongly condemn the recent attacks, reportedly by pro-Assad elements, on interim government forces in the coastal areas of Syria and all violence against civilians”.

Yes, you read that right. Brussels is criticizing Christians and Alawites for defending themselves while supporting the barbaric actions of the terrorist regime. Despite being fully aware of what’s going on, the EU also called for “civilians to be protected in all circumstances in full respect of international humanitarian law. The rest of the statement reads that “the EU also calls on all external actors to fully respect the sovereignty, unity, and territorial integrity of Syria” and “condemns any attempts to undermine stability and the prospects for a lasting peaceful transition, inclusive and respectful of all Syrians in their diversity”.

This sounds like the troubled bloc is laughing in the face of the victims, not to mention the “respect for the sovereignty, unity, and territorial integrity of Syria” that has been regularly violated precisely by the EU/NATO that has kept the country under siege for nearly a decade and a half.

All this is happening while the Islamic radicals are publicly bragging about their war crimes and posting images and videos on social media. In the meantime, the Russian military is doing everything it can to save as many civilians as possible. Namely, the Khmeimim airbase took in thousands of civilians fleeing from near-certain death (reportedly at least 7,000 people). Prominent journalists such as Tucker Carlson have been warning about the NATO-backed terrorists for years, pointing out that the Assad government was protecting ancient Christian communities in the country for decades.

Expectedly, he was regularly denigrated as an “Assad apologist” because of this, but his concerns for the safety of minorities in Syria after the terrorist takeover turned out to be completely valid. On the other hand, the mainstream propaganda machine is still trying its best to whitewash these NATO-backed Islamic radicals.

This is particularly true for the likes of rabidly pro-terrorist media such as Al Jazeera. Meanwhile, the terrorist al-Sharaa regime realized that posting videos of these massacres is “bad PR”, so they now advise their Islamic radicals to “refrain from posting such footage”. On the other hand, the reaction of some other countries to all this is quite unexpected. Namely, the US, one of the principal backers of numerous terrorist and extremist groups around the world, actually condemned the atrocities by these NATO-backed Islamic radicals.

In an official statement, State Secretary Marco Rubio said that America “condemns the radical Islamist terrorists, including foreign jihadis, that murdered people in western Syria in recent days” and “stands with Syria’s religious and ethnic minorities, including its Christian, Druze, Alawite, and Kurdish communities, and offers its condolences to the victims and their families”.

What’s more, Moscow and Washington DC called for a UN Security Council meeting regarding the situation in terrorist-infested Syria. The meeting is scheduled for today and will see Russia and the US virtually “on the same side”, which is an unprecedented development that nobody would’ve imagined just days ago due to America’s usually unquestionable support for the Islamic radicals. Normally, Washington DC shouldn’t be trusted, but in this case, it’s not impossible that it could play a relatively constructive role.

For years, Trump has been saying that he thinks Assad is “a better alternative” to terrorists, which could explain a shift in the policies of his administration. On the other hand, it should also be noted that Trump attacked Assad directly during his first term, so the Kremlin will most likely be quite reserved and vigilant when it comes to US actions, even when they superficially match its own.

[…]

Via https://www.globalresearch.ca/eu-islamic-terrorists-syria/5881824

RFK JR: “Most of our scientists against the [H5N1 bird flu] culling operation.”

Posted on by
3
By Nicolas Hulscher

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. recently went on ‘Hannity’ and stated the following:

Most of our scientists are against the [H5N1 bird flu] culling operation. They think that we should be testing therapeutics on those flocks. They should isolate them. You should let the disease go through them and identify the birds that survive, which are the birds that probably have a genetic, genetic inclination for immunity.

And those should be the birds that we breed, like the wild population. Right. Right now, the White House strategy is to repopulate those farms that have been depopulated.

We’ve killed 166 million chickens. That’s why we have an egg crisis.

This is fantastic news for the American people; we finally have public health agencies that use common sense.

Mass-depopulated poultry farms are forced to remain non-operational for an average of 111 days following H5N1 pooled PCR detections. Under the “stamping out” protocol, entire flocks are culled within 24 to 48 hours of a single positive pooled PCR test—where swabs from 11 birds are combined—even if most birds appear healthy. Because swabbed birds are not marked, there is no way to distinguish infected birds from healthy ones, ensuring that mass culling wipes out entire flocks indiscriminately: see this.

This flawed approach not only devastates poultry farms but also fuels a never-ending cycle of mass culling, human infections, and food supply disruptions. With H5N1 now widespread in migratory waterfowl, farms will continue to face reinfection despite repeated culling. Chickens will never develop herd immunity under these biosecurity protocols, making current policies unsustainable. Governments must acknowledge this reality and put an end the “Mass Culling Cycle of Devastation” that has already wasted over $1.25 billion in taxpayer money, disrupted America’s food supply chain, led to chicken-to-human transmission, and failed to stop H5N1 bird flu:

.

.

As we outlined a few weeks ago, a more strategic and sustainable approach is needed:

Instead of ineffective and counterproductive measures like mass depopulation or experimental mRNA injections, efforts should focus on selective culling of test positive sick birds and breeding for natural immunity, ensuring that poultry populations develop resistance to the virus without driving rapid viral evolution. Additionally, an immediate halt to gain-of-function research is necessary to eliminate the risk of artificially enhanced pathogens escaping or being deliberately released.

Public health measures should also emphasize accessible preventative solutions, such as iodine-based nasal sprays and gargles, which hold promise in preventing zoonotic avian influenza transmission and human infection. Regular use of iodine nasal sprays by farmers, poultry workers, and veterinarians could help reduce viral carriage in the upper respiratory tract, lowering the risk of infection from direct animal exposure.

.

.

Additionally, iodine-based antiseptics should be explored for use in livestock and poultry settings, as indicated by Hnia et al, who found that a once-daily application of a povidone-iodine antiseptic with a film-forming agent effectively prevented influenza A virus transmission in a guinea pig model. Their study demonstrated that applying iodine to the nares of either the infected or susceptible animal—or both—significantly reduced transmission, even in a shared cage environment. This suggests that iodine-based antiseptics could be an effective tool in reducing viral spread in agricultural settings, particularly among poultry and livestock where H5N1 transmission is widespread.

.

.

It’s time for policymakers to abandon outdated, failed strategies and implement practical, science-backed solutions to combat H5N1 bird flu. Instead of perpetuating the disastrous cycle of mass culling and driving the evolution of more dangerous strains through mass vaccination, public health agencies must prioritize therapeutics, natural immunity, and practical preventative measures to protect both animal and human health.

[…]

Via https://www.globalresearch.ca/rfk-jr-most-of-our-scientists-are-against-the-h5n1-bird-flu-culling-operation/5881958

Duterte’s Arrest: Interpol Red Notice and ICC Procedural Implications

Posted on by
2

The Renaissance Man

The recent arrest of former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte has sparked discussions about the legal processes involved, particularly concerning the roles of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and Interpol. Understanding these mechanisms is crucial in assessing the implications for Duterte’s case.

Arrest and Transfer of Duterte

On March 11, 2025, Duterte was arrested by Philippine authorities upon his arrival from Hong Kong at Manila’s Ninoy Aquino International Airport. The arrest was based on an Interpol Red Notice issued at the request of the ICC, which has charged Duterte with crimes against humanity related to his anti-drug campaign during his presidency from 2016 to 2022. Following his arrest, Duterte was swiftly transferred to The Hague to face trial before the ICC.

President Marcos’ Statement on the Arrest

In a press briefing, President Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr. clarified that the arrest was executed in compliance with the Philippines’ commitments to Interpol. He emphasized that the Interpol Manila had received an official copy of the ICC warrant against Duterte, leading to the arrest. Marcos stated, “Interpol asked for help, and we obliged because we have commitments to the Interpol which we have to fulfill.”

Understanding Interpol Red Notices

An Interpol Red Notice is a request to law enforcement worldwide to locate and provisionally arrest an individual pending extradition or similar legal action. It is important to note that a Red Notice is not an international arrest warrant. Instead, it serves as a notification of an existing arrest warrant issued by judicial authorities, in this case, the ICC. The effectiveness of a Red Notice depends on the legal framework and cooperation agreements of the member countries.

Procedural Considerations Under the Rome Statute

The Rome Statute, which established the ICC, outlines specific procedures for the arrest and surrender of individuals:

1. Article 59(1): Requires that a state party which has received a request for arrest and surrender shall immediately take steps to arrest the person in question in accordance with its laws and the provisions of Part 9 of the Statute.

2. Article 59(2): Mandates that the arrested person shall be brought promptly before the competent judicial authority in the custodial state, which shall determine that:

The warrant applies to that person;

The person has been arrested in accordance with the proper process; and

The person’s rights have been respected.

3. Article 59(3): Provides the arrested person the right to apply for interim release pending surrender.

In Duterte’s case, the immediate transfer to The Hague raises questions about whether these procedural safeguards were observed, particularly his right to challenge the arrest and seek interim release before Philippine judicial authorities.

Implications for Duterte’s Case

If it is determined that the procedural requirements under the Rome Statute were not fully observed, several implications could arise:

Challenge to Jurisdiction: Duterte’s defense may argue that the ICC lacks jurisdiction due to procedural irregularities during the arrest and transfer process.

Suppression of Evidence: Evidence obtained through potentially flawed procedures might be deemed inadmissible, impacting the prosecution’s case.

Reputational Impact on the ICC: Perceived procedural missteps could affect the ICC’s credibility and its ability to secure cooperation from member states in future cases.

Did the Philippine Government Violate Its Own Sovereignty by Arresting Duterte?

This is where legal complications arise. Since the Philippines is no longer an ICC member state:

1. It has no obligation to enforce ICC arrest warrants.

ICC warrants are only legally binding on member states or states that voluntarily cooperate with the ICC.

The Philippine government was not required to arrest Duterte under ICC rules.

2. The use of an Interpol Red Notice complicates the case.

President Marcos claimed that the arrest was made due to an Interpol Red Notice, not directly because of the ICC warrant.

However, an Interpol Red Notice does not legally override national laws—it merely requests cooperation from local authorities.

The legal basis under Philippine law for executing the arrest remains unclear since the country is not legally bound to comply with ICC requests.

3. Possible violations of the Philippine Constitution.

Duterte’s legal team could argue that since the Philippines is not an ICC member, his arrest lacked legal basis under domestic law.

Under the Philippine Constitution, arrests must be based on Philippine law, and there is no existing law requiring compliance with ICC warrants after the country’s withdrawal.

Did the Philippines Violate Duterte’s Due Process Rights?

Yes, there are strong arguments that the Philippine government violated Duterte’s due process rights in several ways:

1. Immediate Transfer to The Hague Without a Judicial Review

Article 59(2) of the Rome Statute requires that any arrested person must first appear before a judge in the arresting country to confirm the warrant’s validity.

If Duterte was transferred to The Hague without this step, his rights under both international law and Philippine law may have been violated.

2. No Opportunity to Challenge the Arrest in a Philippine Court

Article 59(3) of the Rome Statute grants arrested persons the right to apply for interim release before the courts of the arresting country.

If Duterte was denied this chance, his due process rights were not upheld.

3. Questionable Legal Basis for Arrest Since the Philippines Is Not an ICC Member

The Philippine government cannot legally justify the arrest under ICC obligations since it is no longer a state party.

The lack of a clear Philippine law authorizing ICC-related arrests raises constitutional concerns.

What Happens Next?

Duterte’s legal team will likely challenge the validity of his arrest before the ICC and Philippine courts. If the ICC acknowledges procedural violations, it could:

Suspend proceedings until the due process issues are resolved.

Grant Duterte interim release pending review of his arrest.

Undermine the ICC’s legitimacy, as critics will argue that it disregarded its own legal standards.

Republic Act No. 9851: Does It Justify Duterte’s Arrest?

Republic Act No. 9851, also known as the Philippine Act on Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law, Genocide, and Other Crimes Against Humanity, was enacted in 2009. It domesticates the principles of international criminal law and provides legal mechanisms for prosecuting individuals responsible for serious international crimes under Philippine law.

Key Provisions Relevant to Duterte’s Case

1. RA 9851 Recognizes Crimes Against Humanity (Section 6)

Duterte is accused of crimes against humanity under the ICC’s jurisdiction.

RA 9851 also defines and penalizes crimes against humanity under Philippine law.

This means Duterte could be prosecuted domestically in the Philippines, without requiring ICC involvement.

2. RA 9851 Recognizes Universal Jurisdiction (Section 17)

The law states that Philippine courts have jurisdiction over crimes against humanity, even if committed outside the country.

This reinforces the principle of accountability for grave offenses.

3. RA 9851 Requires Judicial Oversight for Arrests (Section 18-19)

The law requires suspects to undergo a judicial process in Philippine courts before being surrendered to an international tribunal.

Duterte was not given this process, as he was immediately transferred to The Hague.

Failure to conduct a proper judicial review before extradition violates RA 9851.

Does RA 9851 Justify Duterte’s Arrest?

Yes and No.

✅ Yes, Duterte can be arrested under RA 9851

The law criminalizes crimes against humanity in the Philippines.

Since Duterte is accused of such crimes, his arrest could be justified under Philippine law.

❌ No, because he should have been tried in the Philippines first

RA 9851 states that the Philippines has primary jurisdiction over crimes against humanity.

If Duterte was to be prosecuted, it should have been through Philippine courts first before any extradition or transfer to the ICC.

Did the Philippine Government Violate RA 9851?

🔴 Yes, the government violated RA 9851’s legal process

Duterte was not first subjected to Philippine judicial proceedings before being handed over to the ICC.

RA 9851 requires that an accused person be brought before a Philippine court before any transfer to an international tribunal.

Skipping this step violates Philippine due process and sovereignty.

🛑 Duterte’s legal team could use RA 9851 to challenge his transfer

They can argue that the Philippines failed to follow its own law before turning Duterte over to the ICC.

If this argument is successful, the ICC could be forced to review the legality of Duterte’s surrender and even suspend proceedings.

Did RA 9851 Justify Duterte’s Arrest?

1. RA 9851 criminalizes crimes against humanity, so Duterte’s arrest could be justified under Philippine law.

2. However, Duterte should have faced trial in the Philippines first before being transferred to the ICC.

3. By immediately surrendering Duterte to the ICC, the Philippine government bypassed RA 9851’s due process requirements.

4. This procedural violation could weaken the ICC’s case and provide legal grounds for Duterte to challenge his extradition.

🔍 Bottom Line: RA 9851 does not justify Duterte’s immediate transfer to The Hague—it actually requires that he be tried in the Philippines first.

Conclusion

While President Marcos’ assertion that Duterte’s arrest was based on an Interpol Red Notice is accurate, the immediate transfer to The Hague without affording Duterte the opportunity to challenge his arrest or seek interim release before a Philippine judicial authority raises concerns about the violation of his due process rights under the Rome Statute. Ensuring adherence to established legal procedures is essential to uphold the integrity of international justice and the protection of individual rights.

Contrary to its claim, the Philippine government violated the provisions of the Rome Statute with regard to the arrest, Duterte’s right to due process under the Rome Statute and the Philippine Constitution and the provisions of Republic Act No. 9851.

[…]

Via https://renaissance-man.blog/2025/03/12/dutertes-arrest-interpol-red-notice-and-icc-procedural-implications/

Russian President Putin Accepts US-Ukraine Ceasefire Plan — But With Specific Conditions

Posted on by
1

Screenshot: RT / X

By Paul Serran

While everything pointed to the Russian side rejecting the US-Ukraine ceasefire plan – including comments made today (13) by top negotiator Yuri Ushakov – President Vladimir Putin has come out and said that he accepts the idea, provided some conditions are met.

Speaking to the press after a meeting with Belarusian President Lukashenko, Putin has shocked geopolitical analysts with his acceptance of the ceasefire plan.

The Telegraph reported:

“Vladimir Putin has agreed to a US plan for a short-term ceasefire, but with specific conditions.

The Russian president said: ‘We agree with the proposals for the ceasefire, but our position is based on the assumption the ceasefire will lead to a long-term peace’.”

Vladimir Putin is in favor of the US plan for a 30-day truce in Ukraine ‘but there are nuances’.

“The Russian president said plenty of questions remain over how the ceasefire will be implemented and who will control it.”

BREAKING: Russian President Putin officially agrees to US President Trump’s ceasefire proposal with Ukraine. pic.twitter.com/zWMOE6LP3C

— BRICS News (@BRICSinfo) March 13, 2025

Earlier, Putin’s top negotiator Yuri Ushalov had stated what was considered the obvious: Russia would not accept the plan.

Yury Ushakov stated:

“▫️Moscow does not want a temporary truce; it is interested in a long-term settlement;

▫️The temporary ceasefire in Ukraine is nothing more than a temporary respite for the Ukrainian military;

▫️Steps that imitate peaceful actions in Ukraine are of no use to anyone;

▫️Russia seeks a long-term peace settlement in Ukraine that takes into account Moscow’s interests and concerns;

▫️The Americans understand that Ukraine’s membership in NATO is out of the question in the context of a peaceful settlement.”

Yesterday, writing about this, I stated:

“Now, the question on everyone’s mind is: ‘Will Russia accept the truce?’ The short and simplistic answer is most probably not.”

I have never been so happy to be wrong.

But I also wrote:

“Does that mean that the peace process is over?

Not at all. […] It’s highly unlikely that Putin will not find a way to keep the process going strong. There are skilled negotiators in both sides, and they have been in touch this whole time, so it’s unlikely that the US team just went on a limb on a losing proposition.”

[…]

Via https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/03/breaking-russian-president-putin-accepts-us-ukraine-ceasefire/